IF your Entire Net Worth is on the line, you have to bet on a winner, who would it be at RG ??? This Hypothetical Draw or Nadal ?

Bet on the Draw against Nadal or you bet on Nadal ??? Who shall win and save you from Bankruptcy ?


  • Total voters
    34
I think the competing clay tournament for the best clay court performance Rafa was 2010 Monte Carlo

In the 2010 Monte Carlo final Nadal demolished Verdasco with a 6–0, 6–1 and was his third match out of 5 that he just lost a game. Nadal also only lost 6 games in a match in the tournament the most and it was against Juan Carlos Ferrero.
He was absolutely devastating. He was in such good form that I remember in his on court interview after winning the FO, he said "See you at the US Open" lol he already knew. He was hardly ever that confident. MC 2010 was the start.

 
Unpopular opinion 2017Dal beats 2008Dal with his superior backhand and serve
2017 was the better tennis player (mainly thanks to Moya's input), but 2008 was the better fighter/retriever. It would be a toss up what would prevail.

On topic here: Nadal obviously wins the tournament. And fatigue would never be any factor. He's far better than all opponents, so he beats them in a fashion that doesn't affect another match 2 days later. I would even trust 2008 Rafa's stamina to play only 5-setters anyway.
 
Nadal drops 3 sets max with this draw. Give 2008 Nadal a tougher draw. Toss in peak Borg, Kuerten, Lendl, Wilander, and Djoker. I’d probably add 1983 Noah in the first round, who was lights out that tourney.

I don't mean to disrespect the past but could you please explain in technical terms why is Borg so mythical for only him to pose some problems to Nadal ? With Kuerten at least we know he is a classic clay courter who was 6'3-6'4 tall and had no problems of ball coming on top his backhand, he thrived on it and was a winner machine, so one hyping him is justified but BORG ??? He was 5'11.... I am reading comments like Borg from 1970s with modern equipment would challenge Nadal ... why ? ... Please don't tell me he did not drop sets in 1978 or was efficient like Nadal etc, that is an era related dominance thing, I would like you to speak on absolute levels, how will he stop Nadal ?

When we watch the videos of the 1970s we don't feel the level of play is even of Djokovic's level, let alone Nadal's. Now you mentioned Noah, what is so special about him? How is he gonna put some dents on the Nadal juggernaut if Titans like Soderling cannot as per many here.... ?...

I would love to know how the 70s and 80s greats are gonna stop Nadal.
 
I doubt Kuerten would pose any significant issue to Nadal.

Obviously he's a superior clay courter to Wawrinka, but given how ridiculously easily Nadal dismantled him when he met him at RG, i'm inclined to think Guga would win 1 set at absolute best.
 
I don't mean to disrespect the past but could you please explain in technical terms why is Borg so mythical for only him to pose some problems to Nadal ? With Kuerten at least we know he is a classic clay courter who was 6'3-6'4 tall and had no problems of ball coming on top his backhand, he thrived on it and was a winner machine, so one hyping him is justified but BORG ??? He was 5'11.... I am reading comments like Borg from 1970s with modern equipment would challenge Nadal ... why ? ... Please don't tell me he did not drop sets in 1978 or was efficient like Nadal etc, that is an era related dominance thing, I would like you to speak on absolute levels, how will he stop Nadal ?

When we watch the videos of the 1970s we don't feel the level of play is even of Djokovic's level, let alone Nadal's. Now you mentioned Noah, what is so special about him? How is he gonna put some dents on the Nadal juggernaut if Titans like Soderling cannot as per many here.... ?...

I would love to know how the 70s and 80s greats are gonna stop Nadal.
This isn’t about a zoning-Borg or Noah stopping Nadal. This about about the right lineup wearing down Nadal enough to where he caves in the 7th match of a historic draw that is rigged against him.

As for videos of guys in the 1970s hitting slow balls;’of course they hit the ball like 7th graders today. I have personally played with rackets from the 1970s, all the way up to modern rackets. At age 56 now as an overweight old man, I have more power now than I did 35 years ago, despite me being at my physical peak back then. Why? it’s not because I squat 180 lbs less now than I did in my early 20s. It’s also not because I bench 50 lbs less. It’s not because I’m 3 seconds slower in the 100 meter dash than I was during my competitive days. It’s all because of technology. Also, modern rackets extended my playing time by at least 20 years. Modern technology completely got rid of my chronic tennis elbow and nagging shoulder pain. Modern rackets allow easy power these days. It’s like whiffle ball.

As for Borg, he’s the same height as Agassi, but only about 1/2 inch shorter than Alcaraz, a 4-slam winner. We saw what old man Agassi could do against Federer on occasion. And Agassi never moved well. That was the criticism he received in his early 20s. He was like a snail when he faced Federer in 2004 and 2005 at the USO. Why did a shrimp like Agassi as a very old man challenge peak Fed on occasion? Why did a blunt instrument Neanderthal man like Fed as a very old man challenge the much taller and more evolved Medvedev in 2019?

Borg’s movement is among the best in history. He also had elite endurance. I’d stack up his endurance vs anybody’s. And he served a lot better than Andre did, which is why he was a stone-cold killer on grass and carpet. Give Borg modern training, supplements, rackets, shoes, etc and he will be good enough to at least make Nadal work hard for his wins on clay(I’m still going 7-3 Nadal HTH over a modernized Borg). But with a historically rigged draw where we choose players zoning in history at one event, they have a chance to wear down Nadal enough to a point where a fresh Borg takes out an exhausted Nadal in the 5th set.

As for other sports, we can see how technology affected performance. It’s night and day. It goes that way for baseball, track, tennis, and racquetball; the sports I’ve played.




Owens from 1936 is likely a top-20 sprinter ever, despite being 5 foot 10 with garbage training. I’d argue that he’s easily top-10, when factoring in his lack of advanced training, medicine, massage therapy, chiropractors, nutrition, supplements, etc.
 
This isn’t about a zoning-Borg or Noah stopping Nadal. This about about the right lineup wearing down Nadal enough to where he caves in the 7th match of a historic draw that is rigged against him.

As for videos of guys in the 1970s hitting slow balls;’of course they hit the ball like 7th graders today. I have personally played with rackets from the 1970s, all the way up to modern rackets. At age 56 now as an overweight old man, I have more power now than I did 35 years ago, despite me being at my physical peak back then. Why? it’s not because I squat 180 lbs less now than I did in my early 20s. It’s also not because I bench 50 lbs less. It’s not because I’m 3 seconds slower in the 100 meter dash than I was during my competitive days. It’s all because of technology. Also, modern rackets extended my playing time by at least 20 years. Modern technology completely got rid of my chronic tennis elbow and nagging shoulder pain. Modern rackets allow easy power these days. It’s like whiffle ball.

As for Borg, he’s the same height as Agassi, but only about 1/2 inch shorter than Alcaraz, a 4-slam winner. We saw what old man Agassi could do against Federer on occasion. And Agassi never moved well. That was the criticism he received in his early 20s. He was like a snail when he faced Federer in 2004 and 2005 at the USO. Why did a shrimp like Agassi as a very old man challenge peak Fed on occasion? Why did a blunt instrument Neanderthal man like Fed as a very old man challenge the much taller and more evolved Medvedev in 2019?

Borg’s movement is among the best in history. He also had elite endurance. I’d stack up his endurance vs anybody’s. And he served a lot better than Andre did, which is why he was a stone-cold killer on grass and carpet. Give Borg modern training, supplements, rackets, shoes, etc and he will be good enough to at least make Nadal work hard for his wins on clay(I’m still going 7-3 Nadal HTH over a modernized Borg). But with a historically rigged draw where we choose players zoning in history at one event, they have a chance to wear down Nadal enough to a point where a fresh Borg takes out an exhausted Nadal in the 5th set.

As for other sports, we can see how technology affected performance. It’s night and day. It goes that way for baseball, track, tennis, and racquetball; the sports I’ve played.




Owens from 1936 is likely a top-20 sprinter ever, despite being 5 foot 10 with garbage training. I’d argue that he’s easily top-10, when factoring in his lack of advanced training, medicine, massage therapy, chiropractors, nutrition, supplements, etc.

Borg lost a 100M sprint race to 16 years older Pele who was in his 40s, it is on youtube. Wayne Gretzky smoled him too, all this happened in his peak age of 26. Maybe Borg is a bit overrated ?
 
Last edited:
Looka that kit :D

rafael-nadal-and-novak-djokovic-2008-g-1200.jpg
that has to be one of his worst outfits ever. was never a fan of the capris and I don't know WTH those are...
 
This isn’t about a zoning-Borg or Noah stopping Nadal. This about about the right lineup wearing down Nadal enough to where he caves in the 7th match of a historic draw that is rigged against him.

As for videos of guys in the 1970s hitting slow balls;’of course they hit the ball like 7th graders today. I have personally played with rackets from the 1970s, all the way up to modern rackets. At age 56 now as an overweight old man, I have more power now than I did 35 years ago, despite me being at my physical peak back then. Why? it’s not because I squat 180 lbs less now than I did in my early 20s. It’s also not because I bench 50 lbs less. It’s not because I’m 3 seconds slower in the 100 meter dash than I was during my competitive days. It’s all because of technology. Also, modern rackets extended my playing time by at least 20 years. Modern technology completely got rid of my chronic tennis elbow and nagging shoulder pain. Modern rackets allow easy power these days. It’s like whiffle ball.

As for Borg, he’s the same height as Agassi, but only about 1/2 inch shorter than Alcaraz, a 4-slam winner. We saw what old man Agassi could do against Federer on occasion. And Agassi never moved well. That was the criticism he received in his early 20s. He was like a snail when he faced Federer in 2004 and 2005 at the USO. Why did a shrimp like Agassi as a very old man challenge peak Fed on occasion? Why did a blunt instrument Neanderthal man like Fed as a very old man challenge the much taller and more evolved Medvedev in 2019?

Borg’s movement is among the best in history. He also had elite endurance. I’d stack up his endurance vs anybody’s. And he served a lot better than Andre did, which is why he was a stone-cold killer on grass and carpet. Give Borg modern training, supplements, rackets, shoes, etc and he will be good enough to at least make Nadal work hard for his wins on clay(I’m still going 7-3 Nadal HTH over a modernized Borg). But with a historically rigged draw where we choose players zoning in history at one event, they have a chance to wear down Nadal enough to a point where a fresh Borg takes out an exhausted Nadal in the 5th set.

As for other sports, we can see how technology affected performance. It’s night and day. It goes that way for baseball, track, tennis, and racquetball; the sports I’ve played.




Owens from 1936 is likely a top-20 sprinter ever, despite being 5 foot 10 with garbage training. I’d argue that he’s easily top-10, when factoring in his lack of advanced training, medicine, massage therapy, chiropractors, nutrition, supplements, etc.
A modernized Borg is about the only guy I could see stopping Nadal. Watching the old vids from the 70's is a little dicey, particularly if they are using wood. But it was probably hit harder than you think. Connors got very good pace with his steel frame. Tanner could hammer serves. I have no reason to think most top players wouldn't still play well with modern equipment. Borg and Connors were two of the best movers in that era...very good on their feet. Andre was OK side to side, pretty awful from backcourt to net.
 
Borg lost a 100M sprint race to 16 years older Pele who was in his 40s, it is on youtube. Wayne Gretzky smoled him too, all this happened in his peak age of 26. Maybe Borg is a bit overrated ?
perhaps he lost those footraces. but they were not on a tennis court, reacting and moving to a ball in motion. Borg was magical in that regard. Not overrated at all.
 
Back
Top